Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1887-11-18
He Would not be Instrumental in
Eiteeting a Change of Official Policy.
He Asks an Early Acceptance of His
observation-disclosures of His Letter.
THE SPARKS-LAMAR CASE.
The Former Presents his Side of the Case In
the President-What he Says.


ing his course in the Chicago, St. Paul,
Minneapolis j Omaha railway land grant
| cases, and formally resigned his Office.
He refers to Secretary Lamar's letter of
the 1lth inst, and cites the cases in ques-
| ton which were adjusted by him in Sep.
tember. He adds: "On October 7tn two
| decisions of the secretary were rendered
in the Omaha cases, non -concurring in
my adjustments and over-ruIing the
| authority on which they were based
He directed me at the same time 20
cause the grants to be adjusted in
conformity with said decisions. / now
| infer from his published letter that these
decisions were not approved by the of
fetal law advisor for the department of
the interior. The point at issue related
to the claim of railroad companies TO in
demnlty for lands that, under the rail
| road granting acts, were reserved from
the operation of those acts by the ex-
press terms of the statutes. Previous to
1875, lands that had been reserved by the
government for Indian and other pur
poses, and which were exclud-
ed from the grants, and from
the operation of the granting acts, had
been patented or certified to the
| company, both as granted lands and rs
| indemnity, promiscaously with other
lands. This seems to have been done in
pursuance of the practice of giving rail
| road companies whatever they asked for.
In that year the title to q large quantity
of such lands in the state of Kansas
which had been so enormously conveyed
tothe Leavenworth, Lawrence and Gal
weston railroad company was decreed in
valid by the United States supreme court.
Since that date, lands that were reserved
at the date of the grant or the date of the
definite location of the roads, as the
case may be, have been regarded
| and treated in the decisions and
practice of this Office and department as
| excluded not only from all grants, but
from the indemnity basis under all grants
wherein such reserved lands are by
terms of the law, excluded from the op-
GRAFTON of the acts" The secretary held
in the Omaha cases that the company
was entitled to Indemnity for such lands
This decision, If adhered to will have the
effect to take from the people many mil
| lion acres of land within tho railroad in
demnity limits, which, by your advice
and with your approval, as expressed in
the Guilford Miller case, has been
| proclaimed to the country as restored
| to the public domain. The question of
| the correctness of these decisions be-
comes therefore matter of momentous
| concern. If they correctly declare the
| law these lands belong to the railroad
companies. If they did not declare the
law the lands belonged to the people.
Tho Omaha 1aniSinpa ~ hn
| founded upon decision of the supreme
court In the case of the Winona d st.
Peter Railroad company VS.. Barney, the
assertion being made that the 'plain
| language" of the court in that case
| seems to be exclusive of the questions
| presented" and also upon a certain rule
| of statutory Interpretation relied upon
| as being an axiom of construction. Said
decisions were further enforced by refer
| ence to an unreported decision of the
United States circuit court for Wisconsin
| which was said in the Omaha case TO be
| judicial construction which seems tC leave
| "no further room for discussion"
1t appeared to me that the decision of
| the supreme court in the Barney cases
was absolutely silent upon the question
| decided in the Omaha cases and that not
| even the obiter of the court sustained
| these decisions. 1t also appeared to me
| that the question at issue was not in the
| case decided by the circuit court for Wis
| consin and il seemed that the rule of
| statutory Interpretation adopted in the
Omaha cases was the opposite of the
| rule of construction adopted by the
courts and laid down by law
| writer's. 1 was therefore profoundly
| convinced that the secretary had been
committed to errors of law which if
| brought fully TO his personal attention
| might be corrected. 1t is the practice of
the department to permit representatives
| of railroad companies and other private
| interests to apply for a review and recon
sideration of decisions, when questions
are decided against such interests. / be-
lieved that, as an officer of the govern
ment having immediate guardianship of
the public lands, and immediate
| charge of the issuance of pat
| ents under all grants of land by
congress, had at least an equal right
with the representatives of private in
terests to ask the secretary of the interior
| to re-examine the departmental decision.
And believe ii especially proper TO ex-
press nay views to the secretary because
had not, but would have done so in the
oAiR bhohhhSt1 IL L hdA cLbASbpdktu
change of the ruling and decision. Ac-
cordingly l waited upon the secretary and
personally expressed to him my desire
to have review of the decision in these
cases. He suggested to me to Jet the mat
ter rest for the present in which sug-
gestion, of course, cheerfully acquiesc-
ed. The formal application for the re-
view, couched in the most respectful terms
was completed about October 26th, but
was not put upon the official records and
was not made public. On the 10th
of November L received note from
the secretary desiring nae to present to
him what / had to say on this
subject. My letter was accordingly
signed and delivered TO him On the 11th,
with the necessary change of dates, etc.
copy of this letter is herewith enclosed
for your ins pection.
Several important questions wers de-
cided in the Omaha cases other than the
one referred to herein, but confined my
application for review TO the question
of the ''indennity lands excluded from
the operation of granting acts" that be-
ing of oversbsdowiDg importance. In
presenting this application / informed
the secretary that it would not be made
public unless by himself. Public atten-
ton having now been called TO the mat
ter, shall feel at liberty to furnish the
press with copy of this letter, after
IL has been communicated to
you and a copy transmitted 70 him.
the issue raised by was strictly one
of Law. The presentation of the issue
was strictly in the line of legal argument
In the letter addressed TO me that issue
was not net and the effect has been TO
create the erroneous impression that the
Issue was one of authority alone, |
and that / had refused TO exc
cute the secretary's official orders.
This diversion of the issues from one of
legal construction to one of authority |
and insubordina.ion is the substitution of
force for argument: diversion of pub |
lie mind from the merits of the case; and
If not registered by me in this presenta
tion to you, would be suppression by
that power of proper aud confederate |
effort ON my BART as commissioner gen.